I see your point, but what is scandalous in this decision is not that WhatsUp is being shut down, but the way this is happening. You have a judge from a remote jurisdiction in Brazil who has enough power to shut down the service in the whole country. I wound't be surprised if this resulted as a process that went through several levels of justice in Brasil, but the fact that any judge can block a service in the whole country is completely crazy and a direct threat to free expression in the country.
Of course, knowing Brazil as I do (I am Brazilian) I am not surprised that this is happening. In fact, judges these days feel that they have power to block even actions of the president of the Republic.
Well, a judge just like that had authonomy to launch the biggest attack on corruption of our history, with a much welcomed independence from political influence. So this is not always for the worst! :)
That's what you think. You seem glad that this is happening because the government is unpopular. But judges can use this power to attack any government. This doesn't sounds like an advantage to me.
> You seem glad that this is happening because the government is unpopular
I, for one, am glad this is happening because this administration has practiced an incredible variety of crimes, and deeply hurt the country in their hubris.
> judges can use this power to attack any government
A government isn't perpetually in power once it is elected. A government is always legitimizing itself, and it can lose its legitimacy as time passes. (In particular, it can lose its legitimacy if it sets up the largest corruption scheme in known history; uses dirty money to finance its campaigns; and secretly maneuvers to hide fiscal problems to support their reelection). Once the legitimacy is gone, a government can and should be attacked.
It is funny how PT government supporters are pragmatic when the judiciary doesn't suit them, and suddenly become strict legalists when they become its target.
> I, for one, am glad this is happening because this administration has practiced an incredible variety of crimes, and deeply hurt the country in their hubris.
What you said just proves my point. You're happy because you perceive this to your advantage. But this judicial power works both ways. In the future they can use this power to do whatever they want.
> A government isn't perpetually in power once it is elected.
True, that's why it is called a democracy. The government will be legitimate only until the next election. It's not a group of judges that can determine the legitimacy of a government.
> It is funny how PT government supporters
The fact that you consider me a PT supporter shows that you just care about your political position, not about the larger point around this issue. There are people pro and anti-goverment who see the big problem that is being created by the Brazilian judicial system. It doesn't matter what government is in power for this to be a problem.
> What you said just proves my point. You're happy because you perceive this to your advantage.
No, I'm happy because our institutions are working. What I said doesn't support your point at all.
> But this judicial power works both ways. In the future they can use this power to do whatever they want.
If, in the future, another government does something remotely similar to what the current government did, I sure hope they (the judiciary) do.
> True, that's why it is called a democracy. The government will be legitimate only until the next election.
It will be legitimate until when it is no longer legitimate, which can happen - and did happen - before the next election.
> It's not a group of judges that can determine the legitimacy of a government.
I agree. Thankfully, it is not "a group of judges" that are leading the impeachment. It our Parliament and our civil society, including the Bar Association of Brazil.
> The fact that you consider me a PT supporter shows that you just care about your political position
No, it shows that I know how to read. How does the obvious, undeniable fact that you support the current government prove that I only care about my political position?
> not about the larger point around this issue. There are people pro and anti-goverment who see the big problem that is being created by the Brazilian judicial system. It doesn't matter what government is in power for this to be a problem.
I'm sorry, but I do not believe you. There are way more similarities than differences between this impeachment process and Collor's impeachment process. Were you as concerned back then? Nothing has happened now that wasn't scrutinized by multiple layers of the judiciary. Nothing has happened that wasn't discussed for hours, days, weeks on end by both our chambers. Everything against the government is strongly supported by evidence in a variety of formats. I don't think you are honestly concerned about our political system. You are concerned about the survival of this particular administration. Well, our democracy is maturing, our judiciary is maturing, and thankfully, though sadly, our President - who has committed "crimes de responsabilidade" - is going down.
That's the problem with the mentality of Brazilians these days. There is a concept called jurisdiction for a reason. Judges make decisions that are tied to their jurisdiction, and if necessary those decisions could be disputed at higher levels up to the supreme court. If you accept that any judge can make decisions for the whole country you have just installed the chaos in the judicial system, because you have to fight judges all over the country to do anything. That's what happening here with WhatsUp, for example.
The case of the president is even scandalous. Many Brazilians are happy with these arbitrary decisions because the government is unpopular. But the same thing can happen now to any government, making Brazil practically impossible to govern properly.
Of course, knowing Brazil as I do (I am Brazilian) I am not surprised that this is happening. In fact, judges these days feel that they have power to block even actions of the president of the Republic.